Talk:Human rights in the People's Republic of China

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Organ Harvesting 2 Wikipedia in China 3 Why China? 4 Scope of this article 5 "China"/"PRC" vs. "mainland China" for page titles 6 this article are not NPOV 7 National Socialist Germany 8 removing arguments regarding olympics 9 names of ethnic minorities 10 Other Human Rights Issues 11 Is Falun Gong a religion? 12 Does it make any sense? 13 Freedom of Mobility 14 Falun Gong website link removed 15 All the negative point of the views 16 One-child policy 17 Religious freedom 18 POV 19 POV problems in the introduction 20 POV tag 21 POV Survey 22 Remove protection? 23 Capital Punishment 24 Need to standardize on reference format

[edit] Organ Harvesting

The media often portrays organ harvesting of executed prisoners in China as a bad thing, WHY? If a person is dead and you can use his remains to help save the life of a child dying in a hospital, why not? An opposing viewpoint needs to be added to this, for it can potentially deny another person's basic right to live. --Lssah 88 21:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That is ridiculous. Why not say you can take the organs out of any dead person? The reason that doesn't happen is that the government would never dare do it for offending Chinese people. The bodies of dead prisoners have a right to be respected as well.

Besides, it is not as if there is even a law to make this legal. The government denies it happens - why would they deny something that is good? Their repeated statements that it doesn't go on indicates they know it shouldn't happen. John Smith's 23:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the government recently admitted the existence of organ harvesting, and in fact are prepared to standardize the practice:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/china/story/0,,1756808,00.html

And if you read to the bottom, there is a quote mentioning that prisoners must give consent before their organs are donated. I have provided these appropriate additions to that section accordingly.--Lssah 88 02:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

They had been denying it before. And the consent argument is disputed. John Smith's 18:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I have added more viewpoints from the support side.--139.142.135.1 20:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

And they're completely unsourced, so I removed them. If you do add some references, I'll put some up that say it's barbaric, etc. John Smith's 21:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Your claim that authorities are violating the prisoner's consent is unsourced too, so I have added a citations needed. In addition, you are misleading in your edit in saying that it was the doctor who said consent had to be given, when in fact, it was an American who gave those statements based on his experience when his wife had a transplant in China. I have edited it accordingly.--Lssah 88 00:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a doctor - the guy who put the article in did. John Smith's 13:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia in China

Is anything like wikipedia legal or allowed in China? Is it likely that the government would attempt to limit or restrict public participation in community such as this?

See Blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China. TastyCakes 16:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why China?

Why there is only Human rights in China, but no Human rights in United States or Human rights in Canada or something like Human right in X? (even no Human rights in Hong Kong or Human rights in Macau) Is that because human rights in China needs special attention, while others do not? Maybe we need to creat a page like List of human rights in all countries? --Gboy 04:29, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yes: Human rights in the United States. --Jiang

Thanks, Jiang. Any more countries? --Gboy 03:52, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Not that I know of. --Jiang

Other than Human rights in the United States and Human rights in China, I see Human rights in Haiti, Human rights in Cuba, Human rights in Macau, Human rights in Hong Kong, Human rights in Afghanistan, Human rights in Cambodia, Human rights in India, Human rights in Indonesia, Human rights in Iran, Human rights in Iraq, Human rights in Japan, Human rights in Kazakhstan, Human rights in North Korea, Human rights in South Korea, Human rights in Kyrgyzstan, Human rights in Laos, Human rights in Malaysia, Human rights in Mongolia, Human rights in Myanmar, Human rights in Nepal, Human rights in Pakistan, Human rights in Philippines, Human rights in Russia, Human rights in Saudi Arabia , Human rights in Singapore, Human rights in Sri Lanka, Human rights in Syria, Human rights in Tajikistan, Human rights in Thailand, Human rights in Turkey, Human rights in Turkmenistan, Human rights in United Arab Emirates, Human rights in Uzbekistan, Human rights in Vietnam, Human rights in Albania, Human rights in Belarus, Human rights in Bulgaria, Human rights in Croatia, Human rights in Finland, Human rights in France, Human rights in Germany, Human rights in Greece, Human rights in the Republic of Macedonia, Human rights in Romania, Human rights in Russia, Human rights in Switzerland, Human rights in Turkey, and Human rights in the United Kingdom. --CRGreathouse 04:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

That comment was made 2 and a half years ago anyway. (Plus China are prolific abusers.) Skinnyweed 17:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Probably because China has a particularly bad record on human rights -- much, much, moreso than the United States or Canada.

What is strange in this article is that so many mentions of the US : "US Human Right says that this and that", and so on. Maybe the title of this article should be changed into "US views on Human Rights in China". I can assure you that "Chinese views on Human Rights in China" would differ a lot (even if not full pink at all), and "Chinese officials views on Human Right in the US" could be nice also :-) gbog 07:00, 2004 Jun 27 (UTC)

not quite...the first and third paragraphs have no mention of "U.S." The fourth paragraph has a sentence begininng with "The PRC government has acknowledged in principle ..." --Jiang 08:21, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

In response to the "why is this page necessary?" question, a paragraph lifted from Amnesty International's website:

In 2003, 84 per cent of all known executions took place in China, Iran, the USA and Viet Nam. In China, limited and incomplete records available to Amnesty International at the end of the year indicated that at least 726 people were executed, but the true figure was believed to be much higher: a senior Chinese legislator suggested in March 2004 that China executes "nearly 10,000" people each year. At least 108 executions were carried out in Iran. Sixty-five people were executed in the USA. At least 64 people were executed in Viet Nam.

Others [1] Falphin 15:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

The argument you are trying to make with that quotation from AI is flawed. Raw figures alone are extremely misleading considering China has 1.3 billion people. Taking the 10,000 executions/year figure, the percentage of the population executed each year is still way less than a fraction of a percent, which is comparable to execution rates in the US and elsewhere! Those capital punishment figures have no relevance with human rights abuses in China UNLESS you can provide sources to indicate a significant percentage of those executed were wrongfully accused due to human rights violation/neglect of rule of law by the authorities. I have deleted that section accordingly.--Lssah 88 19:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is the second statement irrelevant? It talks about what the organisation regards as being an overly large number of crime capital punishment can apply to. It also says it thinks the total number of executions is much higher. John Smith's 15:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The second statement is irrelevant because that has more to do with the nature of PRC's judicial system. Just because capital punishment applies to those non-violent crimes you listed doesn't make it an actual human rights abuse, and those executions that have been carried out for those non-violent crimes must have been of severe nature for it to warrant a death sentence. If Enron's CEO was tried for his crimes in the PRC instead of the US, he would certainly receive a death sentence and one cannot argue the carrying out of justice as a human rights violation.

I hope you see some of the fallacy with those two statements for AI have a way explaining things out of context for people to misinterpret them. They belong to another article and not this one.--Lssah 88 19:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think they should be both removed. The first could be removed because it's still unsourced. But the second isn't and it makes a relevant statement about capital punishment. John Smith's 23:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The second statement makes a relevant statement about capital punishment but not to human rights. Capital punishments does not equate to human rights abuses, I don't understand how you have a hard time seeing that. It's like saying the US is violating the rights of condemned criminals when they put them to death on the chair, which is a ridiculous assertion.--Lssah 88 02:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scope of this article

This article is about human rights in mainland China. Hong Kong and Macao are excluded. — Instantnood 11:50 , Feb 13 2005 (UTC)

they should be included. please add them --Jiang 12:12, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

They should be separate articles if there were. — Instantnood 12:21, Feb 13 2005 (UTC)

why? a whole bunch of the beef about HR violations in HK is relating to the central gov't. --Jiang 13:07, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hong Kong has its own judiciary and law enforcement. Could you name some examples of violations of human rights in Hong Kong by the central government in Beijing? — Instantnood 13:42, Feb 13 2005 (UTC)

---

Changes Chinese views and American views to the views of the PRC and US governments. There are plenty of people in the PRC that don't agree with the Chinese government, and there are a surprisingly large number of Americans (mostly business people) who do.

Also the argument missed a *BIG* part of the PRC governments argument. The PRC doesn't argue or generally care if the PRC has better or worse human rights than the United States. The argument is:

1) the United States doesn't have perfect human rights and is no position to lecture. 2) that major changes in the political system can be disastrous (see Russia)

Roadrunner 23:10, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "China"/"PRC" vs. "mainland China" for page titles

Following the long discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese) regarding proper titling of Mainland China-related topics, polls for each single case has now been started here. Please come and join the discussion, and cast your vote. Thank you. — Instantnood 14:51, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] this article are not NPOV

this article mostly use western people's opinion, not chinese view. and the chinese gov's view are less.

Gee, what a surprise. --DA Roc 00:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] National Socialist Germany

I've removed the reference to the 1936 Summer Games, as they were awarded to Germany before the National Socialists gained power.

Exactly what version of history are you referring to? Hitler came to power in 1933. I'm putting the reference back in. TastyCakes 18:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

so what if chinas general poverty and personal development oppertunities have improved. an improvement from squaller and disgusting hell is still way way below average. china should only have the audacity to boast about its general situation when it is good in an absolute sense not just "good considering its china". i live in guangzhou at the moment and there are at least 2 homeless people on every street, the air pollution is simply disgusting. how about the human right to BREATHE! furthermore, china treats animals horribly, full grown german shephards are chained in cages barely big enough for them to move in for there whole lives until they are EATEN! man i cant wait to go back home to australia NOTE:i am aware that australia currently treats refugees the way china treats dogs

        -- Australia eats refugees?

Human rights abuse refers to actions by the country's government. All of the complaints of the Aussie above are things done by the general population (such as mistreating dogs), which refelcts the overall quality of the people. That's like complaining about red-necks in the US, and list that on the US human rights page. And talking about hypocracy: Aussies treat other human beings like Chinese treat dogs, which is worse? Furthermore, if the Aussie is unhappy in Guangzhou, he is more than welcome to return to his down-under. It's not like China needs more people, especially of his kind. And please at least have the courage to sign your statement if you are going to bitch. Pseudotriton 19:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] removing arguments regarding olympics

the olympics have always been exploited as political tools, although they should remain purely a celebration of athletic spirits, peace, love, communicating and understanding, etc. (here is more about political interference to olympics.) the arguments in this paragraph are not well-founded and are irrelevant to the topic of this article, which should deal with the status of Human rights in the People's Republic of China. --roc (talk) 04:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that's fair. This is an article on human rights, not the Olympics. TastyCakes 18:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] names of ethnic minorities

The bit about the character "dog" being used in the names of ethnic minorities is completely POV. First of all, it makes it seem like all names of ethnic minorities were written with the "dog" character, and secondly, implies that the use of this character is proof of Han Chinese having low regard for other ethnic groups.

Hmm well is it true? And did it not suggest a low regard for these minorities, by whoever set the language at least, as well as general acceptance by those who used it? I can't think of a "nice" reason they'd refer to people as dogs in their writing, and if Europeans used this sort of terminology until 1950 I'm sure it would be mentioned in human rights articles. TastyCakes 16:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Your comment reflects a lack of knowledge of the Chinese written language. Chinese characters are composed of many radicals, some of which hint at meaning, others at pronunciation, and others which are there for reasons that have been lost to history. For example, sudden, "突", contains the dog radical, but it does not imply that the Chinese have a low regard for "sudden" things. Nor does it mean that the Chinese refer to sudden events as dogs in their writing. Your comment is akin to saying that the word "niggardly" is proof of the low regard of English speakers for Africans. I suggest that you refrain from making such POV statements in articles in the future if you lack sufficient knowledge to back it up. It is clear that you are simply trying to advance your own POV agenda against China with whatever bits of "information" you can get. Please see Chinese character for more information on written Chinese. You might want to read a bit about how languages develop, too, since I don't recall any one man who "set" the Chinese written language several thousand years ago.

Ok look, I don't really care if it is taken out of the article, and you're right I can read very little chinese, although I understand that many components are phonetic or have long since lost any logical connection with their original meaning. But if the naming is totally innocuous as you say, why was it changed in 1949?

The information I put on this page is largely expanded versions of what was here already. To my knowledge it is all accurate and I tried to make it NPOV, and I really don't think I have an "agenda" to bash China on Wikipedia, but if you disagree please help fix the problems. The naming of minorities thing I came across in a Free Tibet page or something like that, there was very little information there beyond what I put here but I thought it was interesting and worth noting in this article. If someone more knowledgeable about the subject can confirm it is untrue or a misunderstanding, go ahead and take it out. TastyCakes 17:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Can you provide me a link to the specific names of ethnic minorities that included the "dog" radical and when they were changed? Although Jews aren't an official ethnic minority, their name is still written with the dog radical(犹太) and I don't know of anybody who has a problem with it. If they were changed in 1949 as you say, my guess is that it would be part of the first round of character simplification(see Simplified Chinese character). But I think you will have to learn a bit more about Chinese characters to realize that many of their elements are in some cases completely arbitrary. For example, the "knife" radical appears in many characters that have nothing to do with violence and the "water" radical appears all over the place.

As for Free Tibet pages, I'm sure you are aware that most of those groups have a clearly anti-Chinese POV and will use anything they can find to cast China in a bad light.

I'm looking for the original link I got it from, but here's one in Wikipedia: Zhuang#Etymological Note and from the Australian National University. From that pdf:

"...Before the Party made these determinations, the words “Zhuang”, “Yao” and “Yi” never even existed as terms designating a whole people.18 In fact, the words Zhuang, Yao and Yi all were Chinese epithets used by incoming Han in the loose sense of “primitive” (the written characters all contained the dog radical, denoting savagery). One Zhuang told me that, decades ago, the word Zhuang had been used by his own relatives as a derogatory word in reference to other ethnic groups such as the Yao. The story is that Zhou Enlai instructed that a different character which is pronounced “Zhuang” and that means robust or grand in Chinese be adopted as the name for the newly designated Zhuang people. Similarly, the characters for Yao and Yi were altered to provide them with more favorable connotations. These were then attached to peoples for whom there had not previously been any overarching formal designation."

I agree that it's dangerous to use pages that are obviously anti-chinese, but I think it's going to be difficult to find all relevent information on only pro-chinese pages, and almost impossible in the case of human rights. TastyCakes 23:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other Human Rights Issues

There needs to be more information in this section. For us kids trying to do a project this one little sentence doesn't do squat diddly jack for our grades. (Moved from article)

I rearranged the page into sections and moved all the previous information into those sections and added more. Those original items that didn't fit in any of the sections were put under this "Other" category. I agree they should be expanded, as should most of the other sections. Also, Wikipedia is full of crap as well as good information. I suggest if you're using it for a project to make sure you find other sources to back up what it says (this despite the fact that I wrote a good chunk of this article ;)). I saw CBC News use Wikipedia as a source the other day - how sad is that? TastyCakes 16:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Is Falun Gong a religion?

I saw "Li, has in the past denied that it is either a religion or a cult, despite its using some language similar to Chinese Buddhism and Taoism." in the Falun Gong.

[edit] Does it make any sense?

"The use of "Reeducation Camps" is noted. Amnesty International recently released the following statement: In 2003, 84 per cent of all known executions took place in China, Iran, the USA and Vietnam. In China, limited and incomplete records available to Amnesty International at the end of the year indicated that at least 726 people were executed, but the true figure was believed to be much higher: a senior Chinese legislator suggested in March 2004 that China executes "nearly 10,000" people each year. At least 108 executions were carried out in Iran. Sixty-five people were executed in the USA. At least 64 people were executed in Vietnam. It should be kept in mind that there are over four times as many people in China as the U.S."

Does it make any sense?

Why "Perspective of the PRC government" and "Views of the United States government"? They are definitly not neutral at all.

[edit] Freedom of Mobility

The freedom of mobility section is kind of hokey right now. I put in the bit about Tibetans needing to register a place of residence, but I think it is difficult for peasants to legally move from one province to another throughout China, is that true? Does anyone know and have sources? TastyCakes 05:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Not only Tibetans, but also all Chinese are required to register their residence, even temporary residence. However, this rule is not strictly enforced after the Custody and repatriation was abolished. New rules now set local residence as a major prerequisite for social welfare, such as free education.--Skyfiler 06:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

"Move" and "residence" are different. In China, people can move to any place today excpet Tibet, Macao and Hong Kong. Register system have less to do with movement, but it is important for welfare, finding job, buying house, and etc. --Gleader 18:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

well china has more people so it may exicute more people it may execute less people poportinally

with the possible exception of Singapore, I believe China has the largest execution per capita rate in the world. Compare to the US, roughly 4 times the population, roughly 60 times the executions (if the 10000 figure is to be believed). TastyCakes 05:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Falun Gong website link removed

I don't think that it is appropriate to link to a cult website in human rights page w/o specific reference on why it would be relavant. Perhaps a separate page of Falun Gong and human rights page in China should be there.

Falun Gong is an often cited example of China's poor human rights situation. Why is that not relevant? TastyCakes 22:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

FLG is actually a very poltically active, evil cult. These two reasons are why Chinese government wants to purge this cult. The reason this cult is evil is that the leader Li Hongzhi (whose family is now in US) claims to be God. It discourages sick members from seeing doctors, etc. There has been a lot of interests supporting FLG mainly because it serves to show the communist China is the bad guy. Anyways, since you have added a section devoted to FLG, I think that is okay to include FLG link as a valid reference. Coconut99 99 10:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Who says the FLG are evil? The CCP. The CCP. And the CCP. No one else has a problem with them, because - SHOCK HORROR - they actually aren't evil. John Smith's 14:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

As a side-note, there are other religions that object to certain medical procedures, even some Christian sub-groups. Even some Chinese prefer using traditional Chinese "medicines" that don't really improve anyone's health, rather than seek modern medical services. Do you think that they are "evil" as well? John Smith's 14:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is evil. It is a crime in fact. Check Satanic ritual abuse. Also, you missed the part where Li Hongzhi declared himself as God, the characteristic of an evil cult. Coconut99 99 19:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not take a position on the goodness or evilness of anyone or anything. The current section on Falun Gong doesn't do that, so that's not a problem. It does lack an explanation of why the government has outlawed the group, which would make it more balanced. It's a relevant to this article because many people see this as a violation of the human rights to freedom of religion and association. A link to the official Falun Gong website is useful to readers so they can get more information about the group, directly from the group, regardless of whether they approve of them or not. -- Beland 13:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure why the government outlawed the group, that's why I didn't add it. I've read about Li claiming to be a god and that followers can become gods, and that they are against modern medicine. I don't know about this satanic ritual abuse stuff though. TastyCakes 21:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

This Time interview with Li makes Falun Gong sound pretty similar to Scientology. On a superficial level at least. TastyCakes 21:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The Falun Gong article seems to have a reasonable explanation, and of course has lots more info on the group. I added a summary here, and I guess we can leave it at that. -- Beland 01:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] All the negative point of the views

This page should be POV as it is clearly biased, with all the negative, if not insulting, way of stating PRC human rights. Many views are from western cultural, with little to no understanding of eastern asian cultural backgrounds. Tones of various paragraphs are clearly negative.

Can you give some examples? Please sign your comments TastyCakes 22:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Since the very first sentence, it has been criticism as the opening sentence in every paragraph. Don't tell me you can't see that. A better way, or at least pretending to be neural way, is to have a paragraph stating the official policy, and the next paragraph listing the shortcomings or violations of such policy.Coconut99 99 10:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Total neutrality is impossible. Can you imagine having half of the Holocaust page about the Nazis' position? Obviously not. The official wiki policy on neutrality, POV, etc has been grudgingly accept by the big cheese himself as being an ideal, not a practical objective. Articles can always be improved, but it's ridiculous to complain because it talks about the lack of human rights in China, which is an undeniable fact. Personally I don't think the page is especially unfair - it could be more detailed, if anything. John Smith's 14:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

So, coconut, what do we write when the "official policy" is itself regarded by many as a human rights abuse? Not playing by the rules they themselves set up is only part of the criticism directed at the CCP. Being that it is an article on human rights, I think having a critical tone is to be expected. But please feel free to try and make the article more neutral, just don't delete valid information. TastyCakes 17:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you name any government in the world which would forego national interest or other matters of interest in the name of "playing by the rules"? Grow up. Western countries appear to play by the rules because they just modify them every time to suit their needs. They are the ones who make all the rules anyway. Pseudotriton 02:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let me paraphrase the first paragraph to describe the United States human rights. It is obviously not NPOV.

The situation of human rights in the United States has been criticized by various sources, including international organizations, as being poor in many respects. Past systematic genocides of the native americans by the US government have resulted in death of millions. "Bloody Sunday occurred on 7 March 1965, when 600 civil rights marchers were attacked by state and local police with billy clubs and tear gas"(Selma to Montgomery marches). While the consitution guarrantees the civil rights of its citizens, women were not allowed to vote until nearly 150 years after the declaration of independence. African americans were subject of slavery until 100 years after. Still they suffered from discrimination specifically targeted to their group. Racial segregation had denied their access to education and chances improving their social stata. To this date, racial discrimination against minorities by law enforcement officers are rampant. Red Cross and other international NPOs have documented serious human rights violations in Gitmo and other prisons run by the US troops, although the US government contended they were few cases and were result of a few bad apples.Coconut99 99 19:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

2 things. 1) the condition of human rights in the US may not be perfect, but it is far better than in the PRC and 2) have you read the US human rights article? See here. It too is pretty critical. Everything you mention above (with the possible exception of "rampant " racial discrimination by police) is covered.

I really don't know what you want to change here. The tone? The examples? If there are factual innaccuracies, change or remove them, but I really don't think there are many. TastyCakes 19:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

2 things. 1) There is a big POV sign on that page, the main subject of this debate. 2) The tone on the united states is significant better than what it is on this page. Most paragraphs start with a praise of the existing record, then shows the limitation. The same fact can be written such that opinion of the reader can be influenced to view the matter postively, negatively or neutral. In a classic example in Chinese, a general revised a report from using the phase "defeated each time" to "fought after each defeat". Another example is Dihydrogen monoxide hoax. Now, read the whole page again and tell me that is NOT extremely biased.

I don't have the time to edit the whole page, therefore I put a POV sign. There are other comments above expressed their doubts on the NPOV. Coconut99 99 20:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, to me it definitely doesn't seem as bad as you're making out. I guess that means I shouldn't be the one to do a rewrite either.. ;) TastyCakes 20:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

It is fine as long as you keep that POV sign. It has its use for a reason. Coconut99 99 20:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It just serves to indicate your personal annoyance. If one person could inset an NPOV tag on every article just because he/she had a problem with it, then every single article on wiki would have one as well. However I'll put a "cleanup" tag on for a while, so as to encourage contributions to improve it. As was said, human rights problems in the US are NOWHERE as bad as they are in the PRC. If you can't accept that then I suggest you go contribute to this new "Chinese wikipedia", where I'm sure you can push your personal POV as much as you wish without anyone coming along with the uncomfortable truth. John Smith's 20:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Claims such as that "human rights problems in the US are NOWHERE as bad as they are in the PRC" can be relative to the culture and other contexts, as well as personal perspectives. It is rather arrogant for one editor to deride another's suggestion as personal annoyance. A quick scan of John Smith's user page indicates that he's apparently Sinophobic, so who's to say who is paranoid and injecting POV into these articles? Pseudotriton 19:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

John Smith's, my comments here are no more personal than yours, in fact they are less. Considering you a Sinophobe is not personal attack. If you disagree with me, just say so here. Please do not remove my discussion postings. Let's not be childish here. Pseudotriton 22:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

So you're telling me a dislike of the CCP and human rights abuses in China is an example of Sinophobia? Ah, and I guess anyone that criticises the Party must be a traitor to China....... John Smith's 22:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh Geez, that classic "separate the government from the country" argument again... only if I get a dollar each time a westerner uses that excuse for China-bashing. Check out the page of Anti-Americanism, the first category in the definition is "prejudice against the government...of the United States". So why not the distinction there? I certainly have talked to many Americans being offended by critical comments of US gov't policies from non-Americans. Many (American?) Wiki editors have compalined about pages such as Human Rights Record of the United States and Overseas expansion of the United States being anti-American, hence the big POV sign at the top. What's the difference here? Anyone denying a western perspective in these Wiki articles need to pull their heads out of the sand.

As for the remarks above by the Aussie, he's clearly not talking about the CCP with the story of German Shepherd being chained up in a small cage. (BTW, not that it's really relevant, but I have a big, beautiful German Shepherd living happily in my spacious back yard.) Pseudotriton 02:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One-child policy

I think that it is better leave the details to that specific page, and only briefly mentioning it on the human rights page.

It's a policy with strong support in China, but foreigners, particularly western religious groups see it differently. I don't think that it is necessary to drag into the pro-life vs pro-right debate.

Listing the facts are enough. Coconut99 99 21:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

If you haven't noticed, this is a page about human rights in China. Ergo this is the best place to TALK about human rights and related problems. The article makes only brief reference to them as it is. Why is it so bad to introduce someone to the topic?

It isn't about the pro-life/right debate. It's about women having abortions forced on them. Whether it is popular in China/ foreigners object is not important. Chinese people can't object to the policy, nor do they have access to all the information about it. John Smith's 20:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not a discussion forum. Please read NPOV policy. If you have opinion, say them in [Opinions on Human Rights in China]. Coconut99 99 21:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's not a discussion forum, but the views of human rights groups are valid! It is not MY opinion, it is that of many other people. Can't you get it through your head that I did not write this page. I'm just trying to stop you remolding it as you want it - I am arguing for the status quo, even not challenging some of your edits. John Smith's 21:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I won't mind IF YOU GIVE REFERENCES. Give me references and I will keep them. Your personal opinions do not count as facts or status quo. Coconut99 99 21:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

What is it you want a reference for? Just tell me here, it's a lot easier. But you have to let SOME THINGS GO. I do not ask for a reference on every single point that it sympathetic to the Chinese government. You can't have a reference on every sodding sentence - stop being so obsessed. John Smith's 21:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, you can say whatever to your own private forum and I won't give it a damn. However, if you want to adulterate FACTS with your opinion on this page, I will continuously pick you on that. You have to give references, or it is your personal opinion. Got it? Coconut99 99 21:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

What is it you want a reference for? Give me specifics. Do you have a problem understanding? Shall I get a translator for you? Or would you like some English lessons? I'll pay for them if it'll help. John Smith's 21:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, brilliant, now you are picking on my English to avoid the fact you don't want to give references? FACT is not FACT w/o references or evidences. Should I say British government genocide Irish and Scottish since history from 1ACE to 2000ACE? Or British government raped 50 million native americans while they took the north america as its colony? You can spew opinions as much as you want, but not on this page.

You still refuse to tell me what the problem is. Why is this so difficult for you? I have said before that not every single sentence or point can have a reference - it would take forever. If you have specific problems please tell me. Otherwise please can you stop complaining. Why are you refusing to help me resolve the problems you feel the article has? John Smith's 21:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religious freedom

I said already that the article you gave on reconstruction does not mention religious sites. Please give me a quotation and tell me where to find it, or I will keep removing it as you did with my references.

"Newly constructed statues of Buddha have been erected at its base and attract a constant stream of worshippers." Coconut99 99 21:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

That does not say the government has a widespread policy. It talks about one particular case only. Get another link or it will have to go. John Smith's 21:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, hypocrites. Now you want TWO references for a thing I wrote when you don't want to give references overall.

No, it is not hypocritical. That is in reference to one event. So if you want to say that the gov has been doing all this work for religious sites you need to provide evidence for it. It is a big statement. For example, how much money has it spent on such projects? John Smith's 21:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not revert my other edits. Your English and grammar is not good enough - you probably don't even realise it. For the love of God, if you have a problem with something tell me and I'll do it for you. I'm not going to repeatedly try to improve your English when you muck about with something that is already fair and makes perfect sense. John Smith's 20:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

My English is good enough to remove statements that are merely opinions, NOT facts. Coconut99 99 21:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, you are British. Coconut99 99 21:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes and thus I have a much better command of the English language. Also, what is a "fact"? Something that the Chinese government says? John Smith's 21:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

If you have better command of language, how come your sentence structure is so bad? Please, read the one-child policy paragrah, it doesn't have any logical flows.

FACT is something you have evidence/reference to support. If evidence/references are bad, that's a whole set of different thing to argue on. Government quote is at least more trust worthy than your own opinion.

PS, have you EVER written any research papers? Please, refrain your words to facts, not opinions.

No, I haven't. So what? Are you saying you have? If so then you cannot use it here, according to wiki policy on personal research.

You said: "If you have better command of language" This itself is flawed. Can you understand why? John Smith's 21:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you even see what I was arguing on? Your overall structure on that one-child policy did NOT have any logical flow and full of opinions. Whenever you couldn't argue, you would tranfer the topic to something else. First time you pick on my username, this time pick on my grammar that I spent 5 sec to type?

Can we all just calm down a bit? I don't think coconut's english is that bad, although he does seem to be pretty delete happy at the moment. I think there's a number of things about human rights in china that need to be in this article, and I think we all agree on most of them. It seems to me coconut's problem is mostly one of how that information is presented, is that right? TastyCakes 21:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

CNut, I am not putting in personal opinion. They are things that anyone who can access free information on the topics in question would know. As I keep saying, if you tell me what things you want references for then I can see if I can find them. But why is it a "fact" if suddenly I have a web-link? How do you know the source is reliable? I think you put a request for the point I made about religious organisations denying they want to interfere with China's politics. Do you really think they do? Because I have heard statements that the government is paranoid on the matter. It's not my fault if you personally haven't paid attention to this dispute, but I have. John Smith's 21:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I am from China and I do not see any issue with religious freedom. My family went to buddhist temples in Wu Tai mountains in the province of Shanxi every year, along with our friends. We have a bunch of churches in Taiyuan, Shanxi.

Interesting. So how do you get around the firewall restrictions on this site? Anyway personal research is forbidden on wikipedia, as people often tell me. John Smith's 16:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

This page is clearly full of opinions. I've made attempt to adjust the tone, as well as flow in this page. However, John Smith has been reverting changes that anyone who even remotely attempt to adjust the tone on this page. See arguments we had above. My efforts have all been wasted. And I am really tired of manually editing while he has been doing all the reverts.

As the result, I will just have to put a POV tag on this page. If John Smith continues to remove this POV tag to pretend some highly partial, opinionated page as NPOV, I will have to write a robot program that automatically inserts it back. Serve this as your warning. Coconut99 99 00:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Then you will get banned for violating 3 reverts. Skinnyweed 00:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am just going to insert that POV-check tag. Nothing else. John himself has done numerous reverts on the edits I made. Coconut99 99 00:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

PS, edits by TastyCakes on one-child policy is much more readable. There are numerous other places, however, still opinionated and poorly structured. Looking forward for more of your edits. Coconut99 99 01:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know who added the part about wealthy people bribing their way around the policy, but I'll try and find a source. TastyCakes 01:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally I felt that part is really not needed. Bribery exists in every single country out there. Even with citation, it feels strange. Coconut99 99 01:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I think there's a difference between bribing people for everyday things and bribing people not to force your pregnant wife to have an abortion. If verifiable, I think it is relevent to human rights because it suggests that in practice rich people have reproductive rights that poor people don't. TastyCakes 01:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think differently, since one-child policy is a law and it is unlawful to bribe an official. A more convincing statement is basically list state officials with more than one child AFTER the policy is in effect. If officials are obeying the laws same as other Chinese citizens, what's the big fuss about it? Rich people always have more rights (think about OJ Simpson and Michael Jackson's cases) with more connections and lawyer helps.

And in fact, years ago when I was in China, newspapers regarding one-child policy sometimes complained the fact that this policy was well enforced in cities, but poorly in poor rural areas, because they have nothing to lose with more babies. They would just travel to relatives or through other means to avoid getting detected. There was comedy on this subject on annual Spring Festival broadcast. There was a memorable documentary where a reporter went to the west region of China found very poor families. The reporter interviewed a couple on why they were poor. The man answered that the land was barren so the life was difficult. The reporter then gave the couple a few dollars and a lot of their children came to thank him. The main reason being poor immediately became obvious.

In 1950, there were 400million Chinese, and now 1.3+ billion. If China doesn't want to double the population to 3 billion in another 50 years, then it is rational to have population control. Just look at India where voluntary birth control is totally ineffective and its population is exploding (1.38% [2], do some math and see after India's population 20 years). By comparison, many western states have zero even negative population growth, so of course you guys never consider it a problem.

Compared to starvation of 1.3billion (think of Africa where they live on aids), one-child policy is a much more humane approach.

If you seriously want to see why population is a problem, just go to China and discover it yourself.Coconut99 99 03:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the one child policy is not a black and white issue. But I think it would be a stretch to say it shouldn't be mentioned on a page about human rights in the PRC. As it stands the article spells out why there is a policy and its more controversial points. I think that is appropriate, of course a bit of tweaking remains to be done, as with everything else. I'm going to change the bit about bribery. TastyCakes 04:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV problems in the introduction

These by-country human rights articles are very difficult to get right, especially in the introduction. I'm not sure I'm satisfied with our coverage of any particular country at the moment.

Wikipedia's policy of neutrality means that articles shouldn't express any opinions about whether a given country's human rights record is good or not. Instead, they should report and summarize facts and third-party opinions.

I know of two entities that systematically rate and report on most or all countries in the world - Freedom House, and the U.S. State Department. [3] The State Department report for China calls the government's human rights record "poor", citing a logn list of specific concerns, and some promising developments.[4]

Part of the attraction of Freedom House's rankings is that they convert them into a numerical format, making it easy to compare the overall situation (in their view) across countries. They have different rankings for different parts of the PRC:

Freedom House ratings for the People's Republic of China, 2005[5]
Area	Political rights*	Civil rights*	Overall*
China	7	6	Not free
Hong Kong	5	2	Partly free
Tibet	7	7	Not free
*1=Most free, 7=Least free; Overall is Free/Partly free/Not free

Does anyone know if there are any other notable systematic human rights rankings, especially ones with a non-Western perspective? We can add them, along with responses from government officials and supporters of each country.

Another thing to do in the intro is to simply list the most frequently cited areas in which "violations" of human rights are said to occur. This can help readers get a flavor of the severity and nature of the problems by letting them make up their own minds, instead of presenting an analysis which tries to do it for them.

Any thoughts before I try to do a rewrite? -- Beland 02:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to rewriting the introduction, but isn't it already stating third party opinions and examples of abuses? I agree specific names should be given to the parties making claims. Adding ratings from places like Freedom House (which I haven't heard of) sounds ok, but I don't know about in the intro. Too many better known groups, like Amnesty, don't have such ranking systems and while giving an overall indicator for certain freedoms, I think a lot of China's unique human rights issues prevent a meaningful comparison based on these numbers. Plus the rankings themselves are inherently qualitative, some guy at some desk is given a bunch of information and then has to decide. Why not provide the reader with the same information and let them decide for themselves? TastyCakes 04:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Beland, the problem is that "non-Western" countries are often not very interested in human rights - or are only interested in as far to cover up for their own failings. I can't think of a country that wouldn't be regarded as "Western" (e.g. many Chinese claim Japan isn't Asian) that publishes reliable reports on human rights abuses. So really there are only "Western" sources that can be used - apart from official Chinese denials. And, really, THE WEST is such a wide-ranging part of the world that it shouldn't matter. It's not like we have the US and then cloned-US countries. Also remember that NGOs that criticise China are just as ready to criticise countries like the US. John Smith's 16:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I recommend that editors tread very carefully on these matters, and attempt to use international sources whenever possible. Amnesty International and UN organisations are the most neutral possible sources. Freedom House unfortunately is not a neutral source. It is solely funded by the US government and US private budgets, all data from that group must be attributed as such. The best way to deal with these issues IMHO is to cite individual sourced breaches of human rights according to international groups. In that way you avoid the pitfalls of seeming Western/US-centric.--Zleitzen 17:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

According to its article, Freedom House has had up to 35% of its budget supplied by the US government via the National Endowment for Democracy, although it does appear that most of the rest comes from private American sources. It did give America a "declining freedom" rating last year and has been critical of many US allies. I think it could be mentioned, but if so it should be qualified that it is basically an American NGO. The only reason I can see including Freedom House as a source over Amnesty is that it focuses on political freedom and democracy over torture and the like. TastyCakes 18:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's a quote for you which illustrates my recommendations of caution and clear attribution: "The name Freedom House should at once arouse a certain skepticism among people attuned to the machinations of modern propaganda systems, just as any good student of Orwell should have realized that a change in the name of the U.S. War Department to "Defense Department" in 1947 signalled that henceforth the state would be shifting from defense to aggressive war. In fact, "Freedom House" is no less of an Orwellian construction, as its record indicates."--Zleitzen 08:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

That's highly ironic, given that you subsequently ask for referencing throughout the article. :) The name is a little cliched, but it's still a valid source, especially for the reason TCakes made. John Smith's 00:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

>>

Let me remind Zleitzen and the others here that the concepts of human rights and all of it's associated ideals of democracy, freedom, rule of law, etc. ARE indeed western-centric! Where do you think these terms originated? Iran? Even the supposedly objective Amnesty International originated in the West (England). In fact, if it weren't for the democracies and freedoms of the West, YOU nor I would have the forum (freedom?) to write here in these pages. Indeed, Wikipedia would NEVER have been created, and your pal George Orwell would have been jailed by the Nazis! I'm am indeed curious: when were you born?

I had a laugh when I read this:

"Does anyone know if there are any other notable systematic human rights rankings, especially ones with a non-Western perspective?"

Yeah, yeah, keep looking! Let me know when you "think" you have found such a thing. I think you will have better luck finding a Persian restaurant along the Amazon River.

Alex (analyst9)

<<

[edit] POV tag

Hi all, I've noticed a tug of war with the POV tag. I've had a quick scan after I was alerted via the mediation request, and have spotted a number of problamatic sections and sentences. Including...

1. “when 400-2000 pro-democracy protestors were killed and 7000 to 10000 were injured.” Not all protestors were “pro democracy" etc –some were reportedly agricultural workers from outside Bejing demanding retribution (see John Simpson reports of the episode).
2. “As with other Chinese guarantees of individual liberties in the Constitution, the wording suggests that such liberties are already observed and respected, rather than (such as in the United States Constitution) explicitly prohibiting the government from infringing on such rights.”. This unneccessarily implies that the US constitution (1789) has guaranteed protection of individual liberties.

There are more issues and problems that would need to be ironed out, and too much material is uncited (I recommend extensive footnotes for nearly everything here). Until that situation is resolved it would be wise to keep the POV tag on. --Zleitzen 17:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

If that's the case, what's the point of the cleanup tag? John Smith's 00:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Point 1 has already been corrected. Point 2 I think is useful, as it actually indicates the difference between the two kinds of document. Otherwise someone may say, "well what's the difference"? I changed it just a tiny bit. John Smith's 00:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Point 2. I don't understand, what is the difference between the two kinds of document? Both constitutions offer guarantees of individual liberties.--Zleitzen 01:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

No they don't. The American one says "you must not do this/the person has a right to this". The Chinese one says "we have/will respect rights" - there's no specific PROHIBITION on breaching rights. Anyway if you want clarification, why don't you ask the person that wrote it in, Jiang? John Smith's 10:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

re pt. 2: The US Const. Amendment 1 states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." vs PRC Const. Ch II Article 35: "Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration." The issue is over semantics, not whether these documents are properly applied in real life. Such comparisons are made in Professor Andrew Nathan's book, Chinese Democracy ISBN 0520059336 (also the source of my other recent contributions), which should probably be cited in the article.--Jiang 02:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV Survey

This is an survey that attempts to resolve the POV tag dispute between John Smith and me. Please sign your name under one of the choices below. Coconut99 99 18:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• This page confirms to NPOV and should not have the POV tag.
  1. John Smith's 00:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
     
  2. CRGreathouse 15:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. I don't think this article is perfect - as Zleitzen said it needs more reputable sources and I think most of the comparisons to the US should go (ie the constitution bit). However I don't think the problems are POV (at least not enough to deserve the tag), but rather quality of work. There is perhaps a western slant in the article, but how are you ever going to eliminate that when the West defines how we judge human rights? So I'm gonna vote for no tag needed. TastyCakes 15:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• This page has bias and the POV tag is needed.
  1. Coconut99 99 18:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. (see comments above) --Zleitzen 22:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. While the claims made in this article are largely valid, they are not put into the proper context with the Chinese viewpoint in mind. I tried to account for this, but more needs to be done.--Jiang 11:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. This article is largely written from the western perspective and what constitute human rights. While the Chinese government POV is addressed, it completely ignored the Chinese culture perspective (ie. that Chinese culture doesn't come with freedom of speech and nor is killing one's child a horrific crime). I'll name one specific example: the article mentioned that the chinese government think society stability is more important than individual rights. While it is completely true, it failed to acknowledge that such is the tradition that was passed down for thousands of years and is widely accepted. By combining it loosely under the government section failed to differentiate what is CCP's propanganda and what is part of the inherent Chinese culture which I think is a major flaw of this article. So I think the POV tag should be around to address this lack of perspective. --Luqing0604 13:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. The NPOV of this article is being worked through, however, the page has many failures to WP:NPOV and does require the tag to remain until it has been resolved. I recommend everyone close refamiliarize themselves with Wikipedia and universal standards of NPOV articles before they move to suggest this is an unbiased article. Mkdw 07:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• This page has bias. It is okay with or without the POV tag.
• This page has bias, but the POV tag should not be allowed.

Having looked at the article I spotted only one citation from Amnesty international, and nothing from Human Rights Watch. These are the two most prominent human rights organizations, yet the article cites all manner of sources including the US constitution. As far as I'm concerned there's way too much speculation and potential original research. For example, the "Economic and social improvement" section appears to be entirely original research. Many nuts and bolts need to be tightened, unless this is addressed the article is too vulnerable to charges of bias and will fail. Anything other than a careful, tight article heavily sourced to international Human Rights groups will be attacked as POV due to the sensitive nature of the material. Therefore the tag should stay until these issues have been resolved.--Zleitzen 23:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

While I think the article conforms to NPOV, I'd love to see a broader base for comparison. Amnesty and HRW would be a start, if nothing else. --CRGreathouse 06:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remove protection?

No substantive discussion has been made on the issues in the article for the past two weeks. The page itself has been protected for about two weeks. If there are no objections, I will request unprotection. Calwatch 00:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, might as well. John Smith's 00:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you read me input further up this long page? Let me repeat it here:

>Let me remind Zleitzen and the others here that the concepts of human rights and >all of it's associated ideals of democracy, freedom, rule of law, etc. ARE indeed >western-centric! Where do you think these terms originated? Iran? Even the >supposedly objective Amnesty International originated in the West (England). In >fact, if it weren't for the democracies and freedoms of the West, YOU nor I would >have the forum (freedom?) to write here in these pages. Indeed, Wikipedia would >NEVER have been created, and your pal George Orwell would have been jailed by the >Nazis! I'm am indeed curious: when were you born? > >I had a laugh when I read this: > >"Does anyone know if there are any other notable systematic human rights rankings, >especially ones with a non-Western perspective?"

>Yeah, yeah, keep looking! Let me know when you "think" you have found such a thing. >I think you will have better luck finding a Persian restaurant along the Amazon >River.

Let me add to this a link of some of the many ngo's that monitor human rights in China: [http://sangle.web.wesleyan.edu/chrr/activst/activist.html ] even more: [6] [7]

Freedom of expression does NOT exist in China. Both Yahoo, Google, and Microsoft have yielded to PRC demands to create Chinese versions of their web search engines for obvious reasons. And even a Google founder recently admitted that his company compromised it's ideals in dealing with the PRC. Why else does the PRC censors hate the internet? Simply put, they don't respect the FREEDOM OF SPEECH!

I've lived in both China and Taiwan, and continue to follow trends there by reading both Chinese and English websites and publications. PRC propaganda is rather slick (as is typical of communist countries), but I am a 45 y.o. expert on China, and I don't subscribe to the "moral equivalency" argument that some have used here to prop up that corrupt government. Are these same people going to argue that there should be an "American dissidents" page as well? [8]. Not surprisingly the PRC version of wikipedia doesn't have such a listing. I did a look at both the general (uncensored) wikipedia page on Fang Lizhi and compared it with the PRC version [9].

If we follow the same nonsensical thinking of the PRC defenders who have argued here, we should include a page for "American dissidents" starting with Noam Chomsky. But then the argument runs against a big wall, Chomsky still lives in the U.S. and could never conceivably be expelled from the country (like the Chinese dissidents).

Any country can have a constitution guaranteeing various freedoms for it's citizens and such, but unless the society holds completely to the concept of RULE OF LAW you will envitably end up with the crony capitalism, political corruption, and lack of economic opportunities as found in China, Russia, Mexico, and other typically 3rd- world countries. Their so-called "constitutions" are not worth the paper they're written on! --Analyst9 22:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Alex

Is this an objection to unprotection or not? Can all sides compromise, at least discuss the issue, or does this need to get to mediation? I will remind you of the irony of this article of all articles being protected, and of the recent press this article had in the New York Times recently. Full unprotection is generally not warranted for more than two weeks, unless progress is made toward resolution that unprotection would unravel. Calwatch 01:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with John, the original entry for Chinese Human rights should remain protected lest some die-hard pro-PRC types alter the contents and play down the real situation in mainland China. Beside the Tibetans, Falun Gong, Christian churches, etc that are mentioned in the original article as persecuted groups, why not also include the predominately Muslim group, the Uyghurs? This helps balance things out in that it shows a wider specter of human rights abuses (and sadly doesn't get any play in the media anywhere) [10] [11] [12]

--Analyst9 18:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC) Alex

Well, I think differently. You guys only look at the down side of PRC. For example, the page makes it sound like China as an oppressed society for women and minorities. But if you look at the hard facts, which are missing from this page, 20% of national congress are female ([13]), 14.7% representatives are ethnic minorities while their population is only 7% of total ([14]). Buddhism is very much protected (well, many kids want to be Shaolin monks :) As for foreign religion influences, Pope John Paul II made rapists saints ([15])and maintained diplomatic ties with Taiwan. It is no wonder why Chinese government do not want Chinese catholics have anything to do with Rome. Is this page NPOV? I think not. Coconut99 99 08:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

About the Vatican. The whole reason they have relations with Taiwan is because they allow them to work with Catholics and China does not. The Vatican spent many months trying to negotiate with China, saying that it would change diplomatic relations if the CCP agreed to drop its position to keep control of the Church in China. Then China kept appointing bishops while the discussions were on, breaking the goodwill. The Vatican still wants to talk, but China refuses to stop doing things like appointing bishops. It also still refuses to release Vatican-approved bishops and priests that it has under arrest (they haven't committed a crime other than not swearing loyalty to the Patriotic Church).

"Rapist saints"? I think that's a bit of a rumour. Plus there are many old Chinese leaders that did bad things in their past that the CCP still honours.

Also although there are some women in the Congress, that isn't so important because there is not so much power there. In the top levels of government, like the Politburo, there are hardly any women at all. Can you imagine a woman President (or even Prime Minister) of China in the near future? My Chinese friends laughed when I asked them that question. :( John Smith's 21:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

John Smith, saying "your chinese friend" is a very vague term indeed. I'll give some examples that woman are well treated in China: 1. If you go to cities like Beijing and Tianjin, when a women with a China step onto the bus, she is usually given a seat by someone even though the bus is completely crowded. In fact, not giving them seats are considered a big taboo. However, you do not see similar things in New York City (only US city I have lived in with its bus constantly crowded). 2. The CCP has a woman's right committee and it is located down to the most local level in the big cities. This is a committee that is usually headed by a senior woman in the neighborhood and any woman who felt they are mistreated in their family go just walk there in ten minutes and seek out counsel or government action. Now I ask you, how long does it take for a women to get abused by her husband to seek similiar justifications? 3. China celebrates International Women Day (March 8th) and from what my cousins told me, women get a day off from work and the government encourage the husbands to cook and help with house work for that day. I don't see the similar type of national gesture in US. All these examples are from first hand observation when I go back to China and visits my family. Political-wise I agree you won't see a woman in charge soon however this is more due to chinese culture than communism oppressant. In fact, Jiang Qing (wife of Mao Zedong) is one of the most left politicians ever and after she was tried for treason just little over 20 years ago, chinese people aren't inclined to give power to women in anytime soon. Let's not forget, it took women 150 years to get suffrage privilege in US and given PRC was founded less than 60 years ago, I consider their accomplishments pretty decent.

I am regularly told that China has 5,000 years of history by Chinese people. If you consider that, any such "achievement" isn't that great. Besides it isn't as if everything was in stone before 1949 - the Republic of China made things better as well. John Smith's 15:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Overally, I think this article is rather biased. If it is written from a western perspective because that's how the term "human right" came from, then it should be stated as so somewhere. Eastern cultures value society much more than individuals and as a result, individual rights are often sacrificed to maintain a stable society. (Ironically, that's exactly what we did by agreeing to the Patriot Act). While Falun Gong was mentioned in the article as an example of a violation of religious freedom, it failed to mention numerous religions were not persecuted and numerous temples were destined protected by the government (Yong He Gong, a Tibetian Buddhist temple in Beijing, is an extremely popular tourist place). While the article mentioned the One-child policy leading to forced abortion, it failed to mention that in chinese culture, fetus aren't considered lives and just barely a hundred years ago, parents can kill their children and they are not breaking any law (in fact, it is the son's obligation to die when his father orders him to). While the article mentioned cited the example of capital punishment, it failed to acknowledge that execution for heavy crimes (esp. murdering) had being the basis of chinese law over 2000 years ago and its impact won't be removed in a day. The article cited about prisoner torture (while I completely agree it does take place), comes from a Falun Gong supporter, which I don't think many would consider to be the most objective source. Are those traditions dying away and replacec by westernized values? absolutely. Would the change be effective tomorrow? of course not. Given we are in english wiki I assume that the sources are going to be somewhat biased, however, what I cannot stand is that people claiming themselves to be objective while completely fails to see the other side. I am not saying there are no human right problems in China. In fact, I believe the problem do exist and needs to be resolved. However, this article has definitely taken on a western perspective and failure to acknowledge that that does a POV bias.

To Analyst: you may be a 45 year old expert in this area, but I find your comments rather unfit for your age. You claim w/o the western ideas of freedom wiki would never being created and hence it is justified to use wiki to promote western thoughts. It is like saying w/o the help of France US would never won the independence war and the country would never existed, hence France can use US as a tool against the Britain. Perhaps you think this way but our founding father obviously disagrees. Wiki is founded as an independent source, not a source for western propoganda (sometimes they are equally as slick as the communist ones) and hence all biases should be addressed. You are absolutely right in saying China does NOT have freedom of speech, so as a result we should degrade ourselves into censoring materials as well and be like them? The whole point that set US apart from China is that we have those individual rights and freedoms and the ability to make the english wiki as objective as possible. If you argue the chinese wiki is a propanganda tool and hence the english one should be used to counter that, then you just made yourself stand on the same level of the government you criticized. I find it is rather unsettling that you claimed PRC is the only government that has propogandas. You seriously think our government don't do the same (they just don't control the media as well). You claim you lived in Taiwan so you think everything Lee Ting-hui and Chen Shui-bian said are the truth? So while I am not challenging your claim as a China expert, I do find you to be a rather biased expert. Sorry if I offended you in anyway but all of us have a inherent bias coming with us and sometimes it is just better to acknowledge such bias exist rather than trying to act as the objective third party. If we claim the human right article are from western perspective, then I suggest adding one line to the article "However the concept of human right is an idea that originated from the west and may or may not be compatible with certain aspect of Chinese cultures." This would state the POV of the article clearly and address most of the bias issues.

One more thing about the article (btw, I didn't make any changes because I think it would just cause too much contraversy), I find it exceeding funny how in the very first paragraph the Great Leap Forward was quoted as something against human right given it was more than 40 years ago and was widely acknowledged (by both the CCP and chinese people) as completely failure a wrong thing to do. It is like quoting Jim Crew laws and the KKK as evidence against US human rights. Tiananmen Square I can understand because the government never said it was wrong and it could even be expanded into a full section given its large consequences.

Lasty, before any of you label me as a communist or brain-washed by the communist agenda. I was born in China but I immigrated to US at age 9 so I definitely spend much more time under western media (currently 21). I do read chinese newspapers but only ones from HK (Qingdao Daily) and Taiwan (World Daily). I agree the CCP is horrible with human rights (most of the points in the article are valid but they just failed to address the other side). --Luqing0604 15:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I have come across American-born Chinese that are rampant Chinese nationalists and staunch defenders of the CCP in virtually all respects (which is pretty creepy). I am not saying you are brainwashed at all, but to say you moved abroad doesn't really mean that much. I have friends born-and-raised in China that couldn't give a fig about "the other side", as it were.

Besides, having looked at other similar pages, I don't see any/much discussion of the "other side" either. They generally focus on problems with human rights. For example, no one could say human rights in the UK were worse than in China. Yet there is little on the corresponding wiki page about how the UK is generally very good.

I think you're being overly sensitive. John Smith's 15:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course, if you want to make some proposals, please do so. Just make sure to start a new section on the talk page AND PLEASE use paragraphs, bullet points, italic and 'bold text, etc to make it easier to read. John Smith's 15:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying moving abroad necessarily changes one's political opinions. My point is I do have access to western medias and do look into both sides as well so it is to prove to you I am NOT brainwashed. That's all I mean, and nothing beyond that. Also, perhaps your chinese friends thinks differently, but moving from a dictatorship (that's exactly how I think of CCP) to a democracy did influence a lot of my political thoughts and is able to let me both be appreciative and critical of the different political systems. While I agree there are exceptions to every case, but to say a person undergoing such a huge shift in geo-political environment has no effect is definitely taking it to the extreme.

I agree completely that UK has far better human rights than PRC. However, this is a line I saw on the US Human Right page: "Given that the modern concept of human rights developed primarily out of 20th century liberal Western thought, assessments of the United States human rights record often tend to measure its conformity to that political model." I don't know if a similar line is included in the UK page but all I do is suggesting something similar to added to this page as well to make it clear to people who first visit this page on what basis are the views originated from. Again, I emphasize that human right is a western concept and hence embedded in the culture of both UK and US, while it is not necessarily so in the Eastern cultures so I am not only suggesting such a thing to this page, but to most of the Asian countries because what is considered abuse there is quite different from here. If wiki is meant to be as objective as possible (absolute objectivity is the unreachable goal, I think it is naive to believe anybody is completely objective), then I don't how adding extra clarifications of perspectives and basis of analysis is hindering this goal. Lastly, I single out China because human right is China is a hotly debated global issue and an extremely contraversial one (unlike human right status in UK and US) so it is far more important for the authors of those pages to try to maintain an objective and present both part of the stories for people who read this page to make their own conclusions since there is no widely accepted conclusion at this point in time.

I might be overly sensitive which is why I refrained from editing the pages myself and instead just offering suggesting on the talk page. Also, last post was my first time posting at wiki so I am still trying to get use to the formats. Luqing0604 18:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The US page sounds a bit strange. There's no such discussion on the UK page last time I looked.

But what would you say? That standards of human rights in China are "different" somehow? John Smith's 20:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Capital Punishment

A couple of things. This sentence: "Amnesty International claims that official figures are much smaller that the real number, stating that in China the statistics are considered State secrets. Amnesty stated that according to various reports, in 2005 3,400 people were executed. In March of that year, a senior member of the National People’s Congress announced that China executes around 10,000 people per year." is full of self-contradictions. Firstly, AI claims execution figures are "state secrets", so how the hell did they get these "various reports" and then use them as facts? Their claim that China executes 10,000 people per year can't be independently verified either; I can't find any primary source to this information (other than AI). Second, is it considered a human rights abuse to have white-collar crimes punishable by death? Mind you, one of the things the government is doing to curb corruption is to impose severe punishments for scumbag officials caught indulging in serious white collar crimes. Just my two cents.--Lssah 88 20:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi. What happened, I believe from their arguments, are two things. First they used reports of executions (maybe from the media) to get the 3,400 figure. The 10,000 figure isn't easily verifiable, though if you e-mail them they might have the name of the NPC official. There was a quote in an earlier version of this page, which mentioned an academic who said it was 8,000. He then corrected himself later on because he realised he'd said something too controversial, or so the story went.

As to white collar crimes. I think the point is that even in some countries that still have the death penalty, they're concerned that China uses it for too many cases. They might think that you should keep it for things like multiple murder, but in a white collar crime where the loss is money, not life, they would consider a lengthy jail sentence more appropriate. This page says that other countries are concerned - it doesn't say that it is a human rights abuse to have the penalty for white-collar crime. John Smith's 20:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that a better reference should be http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGASA170032004 , where AI gave its source, or else it did sound made up. In some places though, AI quoted FLG sources, which are full of made up stories. FLG is well known for fabricating news among Chinese. xys.org, an NGO in Canda, has ridiculed FLG and its fabrication of news long before PRC crack down of FLG. AI is not credible until it get rid of FLG sources.

The bottom line is that AI should verify its source before it can be a reliable source. The fact that it did not weakens its case. Otherwise, I felt that Wikipedia would become Chinese whisper (no puns intended) as we quoting the quote, or become an agent for spreading rumor. 71.106.187.3 01:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean "verify its source"? How can you be sure any information provided has come from an agency or organisation that has "verified its source"? I think you're taking exception to the fact it mentions the FLG. Some people here may think any source that quotes the CCP isn't reliable as they often make up stories to discredit innocent people. You don't see me removing any sources quoting the CCP/Chinese government. Wikipedia isn't here to say who is right or wrong. John Smith's 11:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

'is it considered a human rights abuse to have white-collar crimes punishable by death?'

Since Amnesty regard all use of the death penalty as a human rights abuse, then, selon lui, it is.

[edit] Need to standardize on reference format

There was heavy use of footnotes in Capital punishment section. It breaks away from formats in the other sections. I think that it is necessary to either convert all links to footnote format or convert all footnotes to external links. Coconut99 99 19:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

As a university student and English TA, most of the citations of used in the article would be immediately rejected and the article failed. I strongly recommend a standard be introduced and followed. Wikipedia and I both recommend the use of the MLA Style Manual. Mkdw 07:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• A website: Author of webpage. "Article Title." Title of webpage. Date of publication (or last modified date). Institution associated with (if not cited earlier). Date of retrieval <url>. (Note: It is preferrable when citing Wikipedia, to link directly to the page you used.)

"Plagiarism." Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 19 Oct. 2006, 22.59 UTC. Wikimedia Foundation. 20 Oct. 2006 <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plagiarism&oldid=82555694>.